6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION , 2024

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHO PRADESH

IN THE WRIT PETITION(CRL.)……………..2020

MR. PRASHANT……………………………………………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHO PRADESH…………………………….RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER (P)

Drawn and filed by the counsel for the Petitioner

6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

…………………………………………………………………………………...

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………… 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………. 5-6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………… 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………… 8-9

ISSUES RAISED …………………………………………………………………….. 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………... 11-14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………………………………………... 15-29

i) Whether the trial court’s decision of convicting Mr. Prashant under Section 302
of the IPC, 1860 , was based on circumstantial evidence, without establishing
his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ?

2
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

ii) Whether the forensic evidence linking Mr. Prashant’s liscensed gun to the bullet
that caused Kartik’s death is sufficient to establish Mr. Prashant’s guilt for the
alleged murder ?

iii) Whether the testimony of Mr. Vishal , the witness from the adjacent building ,
provides reliable and conclusive evidence regarding the events leading to the death
of Mr. Kartik?

iv) Whether the alleged threat made by Mr. Prashant during the argument with Mrs.
Priyamana , where he threatened to kill her and her son , demonstrates a clear
intent and premeditation to commit murder ?

PRAYER ……………………………………………………………………………… 30

3
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

VS. VERSUS

A.P. ANDHRA PRADESH

W.B. WEST BENGAL

U.P. UTTAR PRADESH

& and

IPC INDICA PENAL CODE

S.C. SUPREME COURT

HON’BLE HONORABLE

ANR. ANOTHER

AIR ALL INDIA RANK

SCC SUPREME COURT CASE

M.P. MADHYA PRADESH

SCW SUPREME COURT WEEKLY

H.P. HIMACHAL PRADESH

U.K. UNITED KINGDOM

UJ UNREPORTED JUDGEMENTS

CRI. CRIMINAL

T.N. TAMIL NADU

4
 6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS

i. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116

ii. State of Haryana vs. Jagbir Singh &Anr. (2003) SC 4377
iii. Raj Kumar Singh @Raju @Batya vs. State of Rjasthan ,AIR 2013 , SCW 3449
iv. C. Chenga Reddy &ors. Vs. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193
v. S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1996) AIR SCW 2803
vi. Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SCW 2803
vii. Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P. , AIR 1952 SC 3443
viii. Kali Ram vs. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808
ix. C. Muniappan vs. State of T.N. (AIR 2010 SC 3718 )
x. R VS. Spencer , 2014 SCC 43
xi. Nirmal Singh &Others vs. State of Punjab (2013)
xii. State of Kerala vs. K. Hareendran (2005)
xiii. Jaga Arjan Dangar vs. State of Gujarat (2018) CRI. 6403
xiv. State of H.P. vs. Amar Nath Alias Bhota &Another 2018
xv. Mahavir Son of Milla Ram vs. The State of Haryana 2009 (2) AIRCLR 738
xvi. State of Mharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) (2) UJ (SC) 769
xvii. State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh AIR 2002 SC 620
xviii. R vs. Kelly (2005) , Courts of Appeal , U.K.
xix. R vs. Turnbull (1977) Q.B. 224
xx. State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal (1988) 4 SCC 302
xxi. Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of W.B. (2012) SC 3539
xxii. K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of A.P.(1962) SC 1788
xxiii. R vs. Leach (1919) , 249 U.S. 217
xxiv. State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram (2006) AIR SCW 5768
xxv. Virla @ Bhurla vs. State of M.P. (2018)
xxvi. Suresh vs. State of U.P. (1981) AIR 1122
xxvii. Kishan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2004)
xxviii. R vs. Parker (1997)

5
 6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

xxix. R vs. Mallett (1984)

xxx. State of T.N. vs. Venkat (2008)
xxxi. State of Punjab vs. Sharma (2007)

STATUTES

1- Constitution of India , 1950

2- Indian Penal Code , 1860
3- The Evidence Act , 1872
4- The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1908

BOOKS

1- The Code of Criminal Procedure , Rathanlal and Dhirajlal , 20th Edition

2- Law of Evidence , Vepa P. Sarathi’s , Eight Edition
3- The Indian Penal Code , K.D. Gaur , 1992

WEBSITES

1- https://www.scconline.com
2- https://www.manupatrafast.com
3- https://iniankanoon.org

6
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appeal is made pursuant to the jurisdiction vested in this Hon’ble Court under
S. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indica which is considered similar to that of
Constitution of India and under S. 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.

This Hon’ble Court has the authority and jurisdiction to entertain and
adjudicate upon the present appeal , as provided by the relevant laws
governing criminal appeals within the territory of Madho Pradesh .

The appellant submits to the jurisdictions of this Hon’ble Court and

respectfully requests a fair and impartial consideration of the issues raised in
this appeal .

All submissions and prayers for relief are made within the scope of the jurisdiction
vested in this Hon’ble Court.

7
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

# PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE CASE :-

 This case involves Mr. Prashant , a 47 years -old Hindu male and prominent
industrialist in the field of textiles , and his wife Priyamana , a 43 -years-old
Hindu female who also holds a stake in Mr. Prashant’s business. Their family
includes their daughter Riya , aged 18 , and Priyamana’s cousin brother Kartik
, aged 22.

 Despite their outward success , tensions arise within the family dynamic. Kartik,
introduced as Priyamana’s cousin brother , develops a close relationship with
Riya , causing disapproval from Priyamana due to undisclosed familial ties
between Kartik and Priyamana .

#ARGUMENT and THREATENING INCIDENT :-

 On August 2 , 2020 , Mr. Prashant discovers that Kartik is Priyamana’s

biological son , concealed from him since their marriage . Enraged, Mr. Prashant
threatens Priyamana, expressing intent to harm her and Kartik. A heated
argument ensures between Mr. Prashant and Priyamana , during which a gunshot
is heard . Priyamana is seen pleading with Prashant to calm down as he threatens
to kill her and Kartik .

# DISCOVERY OF KARTIK’S BODY :-

 Shortly after the argument, Kartik's lifeless body is discovered on the ground
floor of the Paramount building. The watchman and other residents are alerted,
leading to the involvement of law enforcement.

8
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

# INVESTIGATION and EVIDENCE :-

 Witness testimony , including that of a maid named Ms. Suman and a resident
named Mr. Vishal , implicates Mr. Prashant in the altercation and threat directed
towards Priyamana . Ms. Suman claims to have witnessed Mr. Prashant holding
a gun and making threatening remarks . Additionally , Mr. Vishal , reports seeing
Kartik fall from the Paramount Building .

# FORENSIC FINDINGS :-

 Forensic analysis links the bullet that caused Kartik’s death to Mr. Prashant’s
licensed gun, based on matching bullet and fingerprint evidence .

# SUICIDE NOTE and ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS :-

 A suicide note purportedly written by Kartik is discovered, confessing his

relationship with Riya and apologizing to his mother. Further investigation
reveals Kartik's true paternity, leading to Prashant's violent confrontation with
Priyamana.

# TRIAL and CONVICTION :-

 Despite Prashant and Priyamana’s protests , the trial court convicts Prashant of
Kartik’s murder with the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indican
Penal Code, 1860. Despite assertions of innocence and claims of accidental
discharge , Mr. Prashant is convicted by the trial court and sentenced to ten years
rigorous imprisonment .

# APPEAL TO HIGH COURT :-

 The case is now being appealed before The Hon’ble High Court of Madho
Pradesh, where further legal proceedings will take place to determine Prashant's
guilt or innocence.

9
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

ISSUES RAISED

~ISSUE 1~

Whether the trial court’s decision of convicting Mr. Prashant under Section 302 of the IPC,
1860 , was based on circumstantial evidence, without establishing his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt ?

~ISSUE 2~

Whether the forensic evidence linking Mr. Prashant’s liscensed gun to the bullet that caused
Kartik’s death is sufficient to establish Mr. Prashant’s guilt for the alleged murder ?

~ISSUE 3~

Whether the testimony of Mr. Vishal , the witness from the adjacent building , provides reliable
and conclusive evidence regarding the events leading to the death of Mr. Kartik?

~ISSUE 4~

Whether the alleged threat made by Mr. Prashant during the argument with Mrs. Priyamana ,
where he threatened to kill her and her son , demonstrates a clear intent and premeditation to
commit murder ?

10
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

a) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION OF CONVICTING MR.

PRASHANT UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE IPC,1860, WERE BASED ON
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE , WITHOUT ESTABLISHING HIS GUILT
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

 It is most humbly submitted that the Trial court heavily relied on circumstantial
evidence and fails to provide concrete proof of Mr. Prashant’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt . The mere presence of Mr. Prashant’s liscensed gun at the crime
scene does not definitively establish his involvement in Mr. Kartik’s death .

While circumstantial evidence can be persuasive, it must be carefully evaluated to

ensure that it collectively points to the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, the Trial court relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, such as witness
testimonies and forensic analysis, to establish Prashant's involvement in Kartik's
death.

The case must eliminate any reasonable doubt regarding Prashant's guilt. However, the
circumstantial evidence presented does not definitively establish Prashant's motive or
intent to commit murder, leaving room for doubt about his culpability.

Prashant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial
court's decision to convict him based on circumstantial evidence alone may have
violated the fundamental principle of criminal law.

11
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

b) WHETHER THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE LINKING MR.

PRASHANT’S LICENSED GUN TO THE BULLET THAT CAUSED
KARTIK’S DEATH IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH MR.
PRASHANT’S GUILT FOR THE ALLEGED MURDER?

It is most humbly submitted that the forensic evidence linking Mr. Prashant’s gun to the
bullet that caused Mr. Kartk’s death is inconclusive .
While the bullet matches the appellant’s gun , there is no direct evidence proving that
Mr. Prashan fired the fatal shot .

There is a possibility of tampering or contamination of the forensic evidence,

particularly regarding the chain of custody of the gun and the bullet. Any lapses or
inconsistencies in maintaining the integrity of the evidence could raise doubts about
its reliability.

The forensic evidence does not conclusively prove that Mr. Prashant intentionally fired the shot
that killed Kartik. Instead, the gunshot could have been accidental, possibly occurring during
a struggle or altercation, and not indicative of premeditated murder. The accidental discharge
of the gun , coupled with tragic circumstances surrounding Kartik’s death , does not necessarily
indicate Prashant’s intention to commit murder . The lack of motive and the possibility of an
unforeseen accident is very likely to cause Kartik’s death .

Even if the bullet matches Prashant’s gun , it does not necessarily prove that Prashant himself
fired the fatal shot . Prashant owned the gun but it could have been used by someone else , such
as Kartik while considering his suicide note . Without direct evidence placing Prashant at the
scene of the shooting and pulling the trigger , the forensic evidence alone alone may not be
sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt .

12
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

c) WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF MR.VISHAL , THE WITNESS FROM THE

ADJACENT BUILDING , PROVIDES RELIABLE and CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE REGARDING THE EVENTS LEADING TO THE DEATH OF MR.
KARTIK ?

It is most possibly submitted that the testimony of Mr. Vishal, the witness from the adjacent
building, is unreliable and lacks corroborating evidence. His account of witnessing Mr. Kartik
falling from the 9th floor is contradicted by other evidence and should not be considered
conclusive.

Mr. Vishal’s ability to accurately identify Kartik as the individual falling from the building may
be challenged . Without clear visibility or close proximity , it could have been difficult to Mr.
Vishal to positively identify the person falling , especially during nighttime from quite a
distance. There could have been mistake identity or uncertainty regarding victim’s identity .

The question arises –

- Whether Mr. Vishal had any biases or external influences that could have influenced
his testimony .
- What if Mr. Vishal had prior knowledge of the dispute between Prashant and Kartik’s
family , would have impacted his perception and interpretation of the events .
- Whether Mr. Vishal’s statement was influenced by pressure from law enforcement or
media attention .

Though Mr. Vishal’s testimony from the adjacent building provides an important perspective
on the events leading to Kartik’s death , it’s reliability and conclusiveness depends on various
factors such as observation conditions , potential biases , corroboration with each other
evidence, and expert analysis . The court will need to carefully evaluate Mr. Vishal’s testimony
in conjunction with other evidence presented in the case to determine its credibility and
relevance to the proceedings.

13
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

d) WHETHER THE ALLEGED THREAT MADE BY MR.PRASHANT DURING

THE ARGUMENT WITH MRS.PRIYAMANA , WHERE HE THREATENED
TO KILL HER and HER SON , DEMONSTRATES A CLEAR INTENT and
PREMEDITATION TO COMMIT MURDER ?

For a matter of fact , Mr. Prashant was not specific in time , place , or method of
carrying out alleged murder . Without clear details or a concrete plan articulated in the
threat , it can be said that Mr. Prashant’s statement was impulsive rather than
premeditated . It is humbly submitted that the alleged threat made by Mr. Prashant
during the argument with Mrs. Priyamana does not necessarily demonstrates
premeditated intent to commit murder . It could have been a heat-of-the-moment
reaction to the relevation of Mr. Kartik’s true paternity , rather than a calculated plan
to harm him.

People often make statements out of anger or frustration during such confrontations ,
without necessarily intending to carry out those threats . Mr. Prashant should be
considered within the context of a heated argument and emotional turmoil within the
family.

There is no evidence presented to suggest that Mr. Prashant had premeditated the act
of murder before the argument occurred . There were no prior indications or
preparations by Mr. Prashant to harm Krtik or Mrs. Priyamana , indicating a lack of
premeditation .

14
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION OF CONVICTING MR.

PRASHANT UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE IPC,1860 , WERE BASED ON
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE , WITHOUT ESTABLISHING HIS GUILT
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

1) Insufficiency of direct evidence : It is most humbly submitted before this

Hon’ble Court -

a. The prosecution's case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, which, though

suggestive, does not conclusively prove Mr. Prashant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
b. There is no direct evidence establishing that Mr. Prashant fired the fatal shot that
killed Mr. Kartik. The prosecution has failed to produce any eyewitness testimony or
forensic evidence directly linking Mr. Prashant to the crime.
c. The mere presence of Mr. Prashant's licensed gun at the crime scene does not prove
that he used it to commit the alleged murder. There is no clear evidence demonstrating
Mr. Prashant's intent or motive to harm Mr. Kartik.

2) In this case , the lack of concrete evidence to establish his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt raises significant concerns regarding the fairness and
integrity of the judicial process. Despite the serious nature of the allegations
against him, the prosecution's case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence,
which may not be sufficient to justify a conviction for murder. This lack of
concrete evidence undermines the fundamental principles of justice, including
the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof resting on the
prosecution.

3) One of the primary arguments in Mr. Prashant's defence is the absence of

direct evidence linking him to Kartik's death. While the forensic evidence may
suggest a connection between Mr. Prashant's licensed gun and the bullet that
caused Kartik's death, this alone is not enough to establish his guilt beyond a

15
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

reasonable doubt. The prosecution must demonstrate a clear and unequivocal

link between Mr. Prashant's actions and the fatal shooting of Kartik. In the
case of State of Haryana vs. Jagbir Singh &Anr. (2003), it was held by the
court emphasizing , that circumstantial evidence must not only point to
the guilt of the accused but also rule out any reasonable hypothesis of
innocence.
4) Furthermore, the possibility of tampering or contamination of the forensic
evidence cannot be overlooked. Without a meticulously maintained chain of
custody for the gun and the bullet, doubts may arise regarding the reliability
and integrity of the forensic analysis. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984), it was held by the court that the
importance of maintaining the chain of custody to ensure the
admissibility and reliability of forensic evidence in criminal proceedings.
It was expressed that “In a case of circumstantial evidence , the chain has
to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and
also exclude any other theory of crime” .
5) Anr. critical aspect is the lack of eyewitness testimony directly implicating
Mr. Prashant in Kartik's death. While circumstantial evidence can be
persuasive, it must be carefully evaluated and corroborated by other evidence
to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of eyewitnesses
or direct evidence of Mr. Prashant's involvement in the shooting, doubts may
linger about his culpability. In the case of Raj Kumar Singh @Raju
@Batya vs. State of Rjasthan(2013) , the court highlighted the need for
corroboration of circumstantial evidence with other material facts to
establish guilt in criminal cases.

6) Moreover, the forensic evidence alone does not exclude the possibility of
alternative explanations for Kartik's death. The possibility of accidental
discharge or the involvement of third parties cannot be ruled out based solely
on the forensic findings.

-State of Haryana vs. Jagbir Singh and Anr. (2003) SC 4377

-Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
-Raj Kumar Singh @Raju @Batya vs. State of Rjasthan(2013) SCW 3449

16
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

In the case of C. Chenga Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC
193, the court highlights the importance of considering all plausible
explanations in evaluating circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.

7) In this case , the credibility and expertise of the forensic experts involved in
analyzing the evidence can also be challenged. Discrepancies or
inconsistencies in the forensic analysis could undermine the prosecution's
case and raise doubts about the reliability of the findings. In the case of S.
Gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1996) AIR , SCW 2803 , the court
scrutinized the reliability of expert witnesses' testimony in criminal
proceedings.

8) One of the key factors in determining guilt in criminal cases is motive.

However, the prosecution could not present a convincing motive for
Prashant's murder. Although there was tension in the family over Kartik's
relationship with Riya and the revelation of his real paternity, there is no
evidence that Prashant had a compelling reason to kill Kartik. Furthermore,
Prashant's financial success and social status undermine any suggestion that
he had a motive for the murder. Without a clear motive, it is not reasonable to
attribute Kartik's death to Prashant.

9) The discovery of Kartik's suicide letter provides exculpatory evidence to

suggest that his death may have been self-inflicted rather than the result
of murder. Kartik admitting his relationship with Riya and apologizing to his
mother for causing him distress undermines the narrative of the prosecution
of Prashant's guilt. The note raises doubts about Prashant's motive and
suggests an alternative explanation for Kartik's death. In cases where suicide
is a plausible explanation, it is important to review all available evidence
before blaming the other party.

- C. Chenga Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193
- S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1996) AIR , SCW 2803

17
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

10) In the case of HUKAM SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1977), it

was held by the S.C. emphasizing the need for stringent scrutiny of
circumstantial evidence and cautioned against relying solely on it to secure
convictions .

11) In the case of HANUMANT GOVIND NARGUNDKAR VS. STATE OF

MADHYA PRADESH (AIR 1952 SC 343) , it was held by the Hon’ble
Court reiterating the principle that circumstantial evidence must be consistent
with the guilt of the accused and exclude any reasonable hypothesis of
innocence .

12) In the case of KALI RAM VS. STATE OF H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808 , the
court held that if the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are
consistent with the innocence of the accused, the benefit of doubt must be
given to the accused.

13) In the case of C. MUNIAPPAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (AIR

2010 SC 3718) , it was held by the Court that in circumstantial evidence cases
, the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent with the guilt of
the accused .

14) It is most humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that, the lack of
concrete evidence linking Mr. Prashant to Kartik's death raises serious doubts
about the fairness and reliability of the prosecution's case. Without direct
evidence, a meticulously maintained chain of custody, and credible forensic
analysis, convicting Mr. Prashant for murder would undermine the principles
of justice and due process. Therefore, the court must carefully evaluate the
evidence presented and ensure that Mr. Prashant's right to a fair trial is upheld.

- Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SCW 2803

-Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P. , AIR 1952 SC 3443

-Kali Ram vs. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808

-C. Muniappan vs. State of T.N. (AIR 2010 SC 3718 )

18
 6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

II. WHETHER THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE LINKING MR. PRASHANT’S

LICENSED GUN TO THE BULLET THAT CAUSED KARTIK’S DEATH
IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH MR. PRASHANT’S GUILT FOR THE
ALLEGED MURDER?
15) Forensic evidence: It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that-

the inconclusive nature of the forensic evidence raises significant doubts about Mr.
Prashant’s alleged involvement in Kartik's death. Despite the prosecution's attempts to
link Mr. Prashant's licensed gun to the fatal bullet, several factors contribute to the lack
of conclusiveness in this evidence. Advanced arguments highlighting the inconclusive
nature of the forensic evidence could include -
16) Alternative Interpretations: The forensic evidence linking Mr. Prashant's
gun to the bullet that caused Kartik's death may admit alternative
interpretations. For instance, the presence of Mr. Prashant's fingerprints on the
gun does not definitively prove that he fired the fatal shot. Other scenarios,
such as accidental discharge or the involvement of unknown third parties,
could explain the forensic findings. In the case of R vs. Spencer 2014 , the
court held the importance of expert testimony in the correct
interpretation of forensic evidence. He emphasized
that experts must objectively and impartially present
their conclusions and ensure that their conclusions are based on sound
scientific principles. Any inconsistencies or contradictions in expert
testimony can undermine the prosecution's case.
17) Chain of Custody Issues: The questions about the integrity of the chain of
custody for the forensic evidence can be raised . Any gaps or inconsistencies
in the documentation of the gun's handling and storage could cast doubt on
the reliability of the forensic analysis. In the case of State Nirmal Singh and
Others vs. State of Punjab 2013, the court highlights the importance of a
meticulously maintained chain of custody to ensure the admissibility and
reliability of forensic evidence.

- R VS. Spencer , 2014 SCC 43

-Nirmal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab (2013)

19
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

18) Forensic Analysis Limitations: The forensic analysis conducted on the

bullet and the gun has inherent limitations that render its conclusions
inconclusive. Factors such as contamination, degradation of evidence over
time, and subjective interpretation of forensic findings could all contribute to
the uncertainty surrounding the evidence. In the case of State of Kerala v.
K. Hareendran (2005), there were instances where forensic evidence was
deemed unreliable due to analytical limitations.

19) Expert Witness Testimony: The credibility and expertise of the forensic
experts who conducted the analysis might be challenged . Discrepancies or
inconsistencies in their testimony or methodologies could undermine the
prosecution's case and raise doubts about the reliability of the forensic
findings.
In the case of Jaga Arjan Dangar vs. State of Gujarat 2018, the court
scrutinized the reliability of expert witnesses' testimony in criminal
proceedings.

20) Presumption of Innocence: The inconclusive nature of the forensic

evidence means that there remains a reasonable doubt about Mr. Prashant's
alleged involvement in Kartik's death. Therefore, any conviction based solely
on inconclusive forensic evidence would violate Mr. Prashant's right to a fair
trial. In the case of State of H.P. vs. Amar Nath Alias bhota and Another
2018 , the court held that the prosecution must present
convincing evidence to establish guilt in murder cases. Circumstantial
evidence, including forensic findings, may not be sufficient if the
accused's involvement is suspected. This precedent supports
the proposition that forensic evidence alone cannot conclusively prove guilt.
21) In the case of Mahavir Son of Milla Ram vs. The State of Haryana 2009
the court held that the mere presence of the accused's weapon at the crime
scene is not sufficient to establish guilt.
-State of Kerala vs. K. Hareendran (2005)

-Jaga Arjan Dangar vs. State of Gujarat (2018) CRI. 6403

-State of H.P. vs. Amar Nath Alias Bhota and Another 2018

-Mahavir Son of Milla Ram vs. The State of Haryana 2009 (2) AIRCLR 738

20
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

There must be additional evidence linking the accused to the commission of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. This precedent emphasizes the importance of corroborative
evidence alongside forensic findings.
22) In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) , The
S.C. emphasized that circumstantial evidence, including forensic findings,
must conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused. If there is any
reasonable doubt regarding the accused's involvement, the benefit should be
given to the accused. This precedent underscores the need for certainty in
forensic evidence to establish guilt.

23) In the case of State of Haryana v. Ram Singh (2002) , the court emphasized
that the prosecution must exclude all reasonable possibilities of innocence
before convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidence. If there is
any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt, the benefit should be given
to the accused. This principle reinforces the importance of establishing guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

24) In the case of R v. Kelly (2005) , the court emphasized the need for a direct
link between the accused and the commission of the crime. Mere presence of
the accused's weapon at the crime scene is not enough to establish guilt if
there is no other evidence connecting the accused to the crime. This principle
supports the argument that forensic evidence must be corroborated by
additional evidence to establish guilt.

25) It is most humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that, the inconclusive
nature of the forensic evidence presents a formidable challenge to the
prosecution's case against Mr. Prashant. By highlighting alternative
interpretations, chain of custody issues, forensic analysis limitations, expert
witness testimony, and the presumption of innocence, the accused effectively
cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the forensic evidence to
establish Mr. Prashant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-State of Mharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) (2) UJ (SC) 769

-State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh AIR 2002 SC 620

-R vs. Kelly (2005) , Courts of Appeal , U.K.

21
 6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

III. WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF MR.VISHAL , THE WITNESS FROM THE

ADJACENT BUILDING , PROVIDES RELIABLE and CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE REGARDING THE EVENTS LEADING TO THE DEATH OF MR.
KARTIK ?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court -

26) Unreliable witness testimony : The timeline of events leading up to Mr.

Kartik's death is unclear and subject to interpretation.
a. Contradictory witness testimonies and discrepancies in the statements
provided raise doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the prosecution's
narrative.
b. The testimony of Mr. Vishal, the witness from the adjacent building, conflicts
with other evidence and lacks corroboration, casting doubt on its credibility.

27) There is a need for a comprehensive assessment of witness credibility

beyond mere observation of demeanor or delivery. Advanced techniques such
as evaluating consistency with prior statements, assessing witness demeanor
under stress, and considering corroborating evidence can provide a more
nuanced understanding of witness reliability. This argument emphasizes the
need for a holistic approach to evaluating witness testimony, rather than
relying solely on subjective impressions.

28) Introducing expert testimony on witness memory and perception could

bolster the defence's argument regarding the fallibility of human memory.
Expert witnesses specializing in cognitive psychology or forensic psychology
can provide insights into factors influencing memory recall, such as stress,
suggestibility, and post-event information. This argument aims to educate the
court on the limitations of witness testimony and highlight the potential for
memory distortion or inaccuracy.

29) The counsel also challenges the admissibility of hearsay evidence presented
through witness testimony. Advanced arguments could involve citing case law
and legal principles governing hearsay exceptions and highlighting instances

22
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

where hearsay statements lack reliability or relevance. By advocating for strict

adherence to evidentiary rules, the defence aims to exclude potentially
prejudicial or unreliable hearsay testimony from consideration.
30) Cross-Examination Strategies: Advanced cross-examination techniques
can be employed to undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses and
expose inconsistencies or biases in their testimony. This may involve
employing leading questions, confronting witnesses with contradictory
evidence, and eliciting concessions that weaken the prosecution's case. By
skillfully challenging witness testimony through cross-examination, the
defence seeks to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the fact-finder and
undermine the prosecution's narrative.
31) Witness statements from a distant location are particularly prone to
misinterpretation and error. Factors such as poor lighting
conditions, obstacles and limited visibility can contribute to perceptual
errors. The counsel may argue that these factors could
influence Mr. Vishal's testimony, leading to possible mistakes or
misinterpretations of events.
32) Mr. Vishal's testimony is subject to scrutiny due to the distance between his
location in the adjacent building and the scene of the incident. The ability to
accurately observe events from such a distance, especially at night, raises
questions about the reliability of his testimony.
33) In the case of R vs. Turnbull , the court established guidelines for
evaluating eyewitness identification evidence, emphasizing the need for
caution when relying solely on witness testimony. It highlights the importance
of assessing factors such as witness opportunity, stress levels, and the
presence of any suggestive influences.
34) In the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal (1988) , the court emphasized
the necessity of corroboration in cases based primarily on eyewitness
testimony. It underscored the importance of supporting evidence to bolster the
reliability of witness accounts, particularly when significant consequences
hinge on their testimony.
-R vs. Turnbull (1977) Q.B. 224

-State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal (1988) 4 SCC 302

23
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

35) In the case of Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (2012) , the court
held emphasizing the importance of assessing witness credibility and the
reliability of their testimony. It underscored the need for courts to evaluate
witness statements in light of inconsistencies, contradictions, and external
factors that may impact their reliability.
36) In the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1962),
The court highlighted the principle that witness testimony must be scrutinized
rigorously, especially when it forms the primary basis for conviction. It
emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence to support witness
accounts and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
37) In the case of R v. Leach (1919) , the court emphasized that witness
testimony should be evaluated based on its consistency, coherence, and
credibility. It underscored the need for courts to assess witness reliability and
the presence of any factors that may compromise the accuracy of their
testimony.
38) In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) , the court emphasized the
principle that witness testimony must be evaluated in light of the surrounding
circumstances and corroborating evidence. It highlighted the importance of assessing
witness credibility and the reliability of their account in determining guilt or
innocence.
39) These case laws provide a framework for evaluating the reliability and
conclusiveness of Mr. Vishal's testimony regarding the events leading to Mr. Kartik's
death. They emphasize the need for caution when relying solely on witness testimony
and highlight the importance of corroborating evidence and assessing witness
credibility to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
40) Mr. Vishal's testimony stands alone without corroboration from other witnesses or
physical evidence. In cases involving serious allegations such as murder, it is essential
to corroborate witness testimony with additional evidence to establish its reliability
and credibility. Without independent verification or supporting evidence, Mr. Vishal's
testimony may lack the necessary credibility to serve as reliable and conclusive
evidence in the case.

-Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of W.B. (2012) SC 3539 1788 -R vs. Leach (1919) , 249 U.S. 2

-K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of A.P.(1962) SC 17

- State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram (2006) AIR SCW 5768

24
 6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

41) It is most humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that, while Mr. Vishal's
testimony may provide crucial insight into the events leading to Kartik's death, a
closer look reveals that his account may lack the credibility and conviction needed to
establish Prashant's guilt. Lack of direct observation, possibility of misinterpretation,
reliability of memory, possible bias or motive, lack of corroborating evidence and
possible errors in reporting call into question the credibility of Mr. Vishal's testimony.
Therefore, it is necessary that Mr. Vishal's testimony be verified and corroborated
with additional evidence before it is considered reliable and conclusive to determine
Prashant's guilt. Without sufficient evidence to support Mr. Vishal's testimony, it
would be unfair to rely solely on his opinion to convict Prashant of the alleged crime.

IV. WHETHER THE ALLEGED THREAT MADE BY MR.PRASHANT DURING

THE ARGUMENT WITH MRS. PRIYAMANA , WHERE HE THREATENED TO
KILL HER and HER SON , DEMONSTRATES A CLEAR INTENT and
PREMEDITATION TO COMMIT MURDER ?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court -

42) Presence of premeditated events : Without compelling evidence such as

prior planning, motive, or explicit intent to commit the alleged crime, the
assertion of premeditation remains speculative. Advanced arguments could
emphasize the absence of direct evidence linking Mr. Prashant to a
preconceived plan or scheme to harm Kartik.
43) The council advocates for an exploration of alternative explanations for the
events leading to Kartik's death. Arguments could involve presenting
evidence or witness testimony suggesting that the altercation between Mr.
Prashant and Priyamana escalated spontaneously, without premeditated intent
on Mr. Prashant's part. By highlighting alternative interpretations of the
evidence, the defence aims to challenge the prosecution's narrative of
premeditation.
44) The counsel’s arguments involve introducing expert testimony from
psychologists or forensic psychiatrists to evaluate Mr. Prashant's state of mind
at the time of the incident. Psychological assessment could help assess factors
such as impulsivity, emotional distress, or cognitive impairment that may
mitigate against a finding of premeditation. By examining Mr. Prashant's

25
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

mental state, the defence aims to challenge the prosecution's assertion of

deliberate planning or intent.
45) If the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence to support its claim of
premeditation, the defence could meticulously dissect and rebut each piece of
evidence. Advanced arguments may involve challenging the inference of
premeditation drawn from circumstantial evidence, highlighting alternative
explanations or reasonable doubt. By scrutinizing the reliability and
sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the defence aims to undermine the
prosecution's case for premeditation.
46) The emotional factors, such as marital discord or familial tensions, played a
significant role in the altercation between Mr. Prashant and Priyamana.
Advanced arguments could involve presenting evidence of prior conflicts or
emotional stressors within the family dynamic, which may have contributed
to the heated exchange on the night of Kartik's death. By contextualizing the
events within the broader emotional escape, the defence aims to challenge the
prosecution's characterization of premeditation.
47) In the case of Virla @Bhurla vs. State of M.P. 2018 , the court held the
importance of considering the context and circumstances surrounding a verbal
threat to determine its seriousness and credibility. The court emphasized that
a threat made in the heat of the moment, without any subsequent action or
preparation, may not necessarily indicate premeditation.
48) In the case of Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981), the court held that
premeditation involves a deliberate and calculated plan to commit a crime,
which may be inferred from the accused's actions, behavior, and surrounding
circumstances. Mere verbal threats, without corroborating evidence of intent
or preparation, may not establish premeditation.
49) In the case of Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2004) , the court
emphasized that premeditation requires evidence of deliberate planning and
forethought to commit the crime.
-Virla @ Bhurla vs. State of M.P. (2018)

-Suresh vs. State of U.P. (1981) AIR 1122

-Kishan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2004)

26
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

Mere verbal threats made in the heat of the moment, without any evidence of
prior intent or preparation, may not establish premeditation beyond a
reasonable doubt.

50) During the argument, Prashant's emotions were likely running high, leading
to impulsive and rash behavior. Emotions such as anger, frustration, and
resentment can cloud judgment and lead individuals to make statements they
do not necessarily intend to act upon. Prashant's threat may have been a
manifestation of his emotional state at the time rather than a calculated
expression of intent to commit murder.

51) R v. Parker (1977): In this case, the court held that to establish premeditation,
there must be evidence of a conscious decision and planning to commit the
crime in advance. Mere expressions of anger or frustration, without any
subsequent action or preparation, may not constitute sufficient evidence of
premeditation.

52) R v. Mallett (1984): In this case, the court ruled that expressions of anger or
frustration, including verbal threats, do not necessarily indicate a
premeditated intent to commit murder. The court emphasized the need for
additional evidence demonstrating conscious planning and preparation.

53) Character witnesses who know Prashant personally can provide valuable
information about his temperament, behavior and moral character.
Testimonies from friends, family, colleagues and community members can
testify to Prashant's non-violence, his positive contribution to society and his
lack of violent behavior. Such testimony may undermine the notion that
Prashant is capable of premeditated murder.

-R vs. Parker (1997)

-R vs. Mallett (1984)

27
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

54) State of Tamil Nadu v. Venkat (2008): Here, the court highlighted the distinction
between spontaneous expressions of anger and genuine premeditated intent to commit
murder. Mere verbal threats, without corroborating evidence of planning or
preparation, may not establish premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

55) State of Punjab v. Sharma (2007): Here, the court emphasized that to establish
premeditated intent to commit murder, there must be evidence of conscious planning
and preparation. Mere threats made in the heat of the moment, without supporting
evidence of intent or preparation, may not suffice.

56) These case laws provide precedents for evaluating whether the alleged threat made
by Mr. Prashant demonstrates clear intent and premeditation to commit murder. They
highlight the importance of corroborating evidence and considering the accused's
behavior and surrounding circumstances to assess the credibility of the threat and
establish premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

57) A thorough psychological evaluation of Prashant may reveal his state of mind at the
time of the alleged threat and his propensity for violent behavior. A qualified mental
health professional can assess Prashant's cognitive functioning, emotional stability,
impulse control and risk of violence. If the evaluation shows no signs of
psychopathology or violent tendencies, it could cast doubt on the prosecution's claim
that Prashant had a clear intent to commit murder.

58) In conclusion, although Mr. Prashant's alleged threat to , while the conflict with Mrs.
Priyamana raises concerns about his intent to commit the murder, there are several
factors that challenge that interpretation. The context of the threat, lack of sequence,
Prashant's emotional state, lack of planning or preparation, character witness, and the
possibility of a psychological evaluation indicate that the threat may not be a clear
intent to commit murder.

-State of T.N. vs. Venkat (2008)

-State of Punjab vs. Sharma (2007)

28
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

These factors must be carefully considered and weighed to ensure a fair and just outcome
for Mr. Prashant. Without sufficient evidence to show his intent and premeditation, it
would be unjust to convict him of the alleged crime of murder.

59) Section 503 IPC - Criminal Intimidation:

 This section defines criminal intimidation as any threat to cause injury, dishonestly
induce a person to deliver property, or to cause a person to commit an offense
punishable by death or imprisonment.
 It states that whoever threatens anr. person with injury to his person, reputation, or
property with the intent to cause alarm or deter him from doing any act which he
has a legal right to do or to compel him to do any act which he is not legally bound
to do, commits criminal intimidation.

 The presence of intent is crucial in determining whether the threat constitutes

criminal intimidation .

60) It is most humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that ,For Prashant's
conviction for murder , The Court must consider these advanced arguments and
uphold the principle of justice by acquitting Mr. Prashant of all charges.

29
6th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2024 MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER

PRAYER
WHREFORE , IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED , ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
and AUTHORITIES CITED , IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO HOLD , DIRECT and DECLARE .

1. Reversal of conviction – we respectfully request the hon’ble high court to review

the evidence presented and overturn the trial courts verdict, finding Prashant not guilty
of the charges levelled against him .
2. Fair trail – we implore the court to insure that Prashant receives a fair and impartial
trial, free from any bias or prejudice, in accordance with the principles of justice and
due process.
3. Exoneration – we seek the exoneration of Prashant from all accusations and charges
related to the alleged murder of kartik, based on the lack of sufficient evidence and
reasonable doubt surrounding the case.
4. Release from custody – pending the outcome of this appeal, we request Prashant’s
release from custody, as continued detention without conclusive evidence of guilt
would amount unjust deprivation of liberty.
5. Restoration of rights – we ask for the restoration of Prashant’s right and reputation,
recognizing the harm caused by false accusations and wrongful conviction.

We humbly submit this prayer for the consideration of the hon’ble high courts, trusting
in the pursuit of truth and justice.
Any other appropriate relief , order or direction to meet the ends of justice be also
awarded to the petitioner and against the respondents .

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall forever be duty bounded .

Sd/-
Counsel on behalf of Petitioners

30